The state’s case against James Scharfschwerdt, accused of child molestation, received a big boost Friday when Judge Terry LaRue ruled that the testimony of a handful of alleged sexual abuse victims was admissible.

In a lengthy — and at times emotional — Williams Rule hearing, five different men testified that Scharfschwerdt befriended them as boys through a mutual interest in fishing and/or boating, provided them with alcohol and sexually molested them.

The Williams Rule, which is named for the 1959 case of Williams v. Florida, allows the prosecution to present “other crimes, wrongs or acts” to aid its own case.

The state brought forth three men who testified that they were molested by Scharfschwerdt in St. Augustine at some point from 2007 to 2010. Also testifying were two men from the Vero Beach area who claim similar acts were committed against them in the 1980s.

All the men said they were minors at the time of the alleged sexual contact.

While the youngest of the alleged victims had little trouble maintaining their composure during their very graphic testimony, it was more difficult for the older men.

Both men from South Florida said they tried to suppress the memories of the acts they claimed Scharfschwerdt performed against them for two decades. They each broke down briefly in Friday’s hearing.

Scharfschwerdt, who was present during the entire hearing but did not speak, sat back and watched the witness testimony or took notes. He seemed unfazed by the stories of his accusers, most of whom chose not to look him in the eye.

The calm was interrupted halfway through the hearing when the state presented Scharfschwerdt’s adult son, Matthew, as a witness. He said that he was unaware of any sexual acts committed against those who testified.

When Matthew took the stand, Scharfschwerdt seemed to mouth “I love you” and cried for a few moments. His son ignored it or did not notice. He appeared not to make eye contact with Scharfschwerdt and referred to him in testimony as “Jim.”

Scharfschwerdt is a former South Florida law enforcement officer who was actually arrested on child molestation charges in 1988 but was not convicted. He moved to St. Johns County and ran a boat financing company before he was arrested here in December 2010.

Scharfschwerdt has two cases pending against him. One is a case in which he is charged with three counts of lewd or lascivious battery, sex act with a minor 12 years old or older but less than 16. The other case includes one count of the same charge.

Defense attorney Jill Barger argued against allowing the testimony of so many alleged victims in a trial that is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 26.

“We feel the state is abusing the Williams Rule in this case,” she said. “I don’t think the state has any foundation for the Williams Rule in this case.”

She claimed there was no “commonality” in the stories the men told of their encounters with Scharfschwerdt.

Assistant state attorney Jennifer Dunton said the combined testimony displayed Scharfschwerdt’s modus operandi of bonding with the boys — often preying of friends of his son — plying them with alcohol and providing access to pornography.

“This is exactly what this (the Williams Rule) is used for,” Dunton said.

The judge agreed that all testimony was admissible because it all met the four-part test of:

■ Clear and convincing standard of evidence

■ Evidence is for corroboration

■ Evidence is not too remote

■ Does not upset the balance of prejudice to the defense and probative value to the case.

LaRue said that, according to the testimony he heard, the acts committed by Scharfschwerdt were done in a calculated manner that would leave no corroborating evidence without the Williams Rule testimony.

A subsection of the Florida statute that covers the Williams Rule states: “In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant’s commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.”

That has to be proven at a pretrial hearing before the state can go forward with in a trial.